and why a fee is needed? No instant power down but 2 power up times would be pretty much the same, but more dynamic. What with wallet recovery?
If we chose taxes, will it be announced in time?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
and why a fee is needed? No instant power down but 2 power up times would be pretty much the same, but more dynamic. What with wallet recovery?
If we chose taxes, will it be announced in time?
The fee for instant powerdown would discourage exchanges from powering up their customer's funds without their permission.
On the security side, there's been discussion in mattermost for various mitigation techniques. One would be an option to lock one's account against immediate powerdowns. If you then wanted to unlock it and allow instant powerdowns again, there would be a delay before it's allowed. This could be the default for regular users, and speculative traders who want to be able to access their funds quickly via instant powerdown could forego the initial lock against powerdowns.
Any change like this would have to be done in a future hardfork, it's too late to consider including anything like this in HF25, IMO.
Thanks, good to know.
As long there a ways to power up and down without a fee I would support it.
Also, I would prefer an opt-in for wallets first, as you mention. Maybe with a simple multi-sig solution, that could be easily implemented in front ends.
Then I would agree, it is a good idea.
My concern would be if we tax everything for long term holders, we kill the ability for new holders to be part of hive. Because I think hive is first a chain for web3, not defi (on the main chain).
Could a powerdown be bound to the equivalent of an "authenticator" app? would be nice to have an additional opt-in layer of security for key functions.
It's already possible to do multisig and one of the keys could be tied to an app or authenticator device. That requires a bunch of design and development which of course doesn't exist. However, in the current structure you can't tie keys to particular operations, so all active key operations would need to be similarly protected, not just power downs (imagine confirming transfers, etc. via your mobile device). This seems mostly fine to me.
Can we have a proposal made by you or Dan with these options presented and voted on by the community? Something similar to what i did.
Or do you feel there is enough witness support for this to pass without a formal community input? (lets call it a referendum)
By active voting stake, my guess is there is enough to pass 13 week + instant powerdown with fee, at the moment. But it seems like a discussion of the exact mechanics is still going on, and there's no rush, as there's at least a few months to the next HF, even if we try to get out the next one out quicker.
Thats understandable. My fear is that we currently dont have a principle set up on how to deal with change recommendations. If you caught my DM you probably saw what im referring to exactly.
When it comes to change implementation its really important to structure the discussions otherwise it "goes all over the place", people get exhausted, burned out, time is wasted and emotions fly high and people can get angry.
Time lock could work. That is my biggest opposition to instant powerdown is the risk to security and it rendering the whole account recovery process redundant (as there is no funds to recover).
i think that is not a change that can be done just like that, so it would probably need a HF and we would get enough time until the hf is implemented.
If the trend continues, that would be in 6+ months.
just my noob take on it, so :)
That's true. That's why i made a proposal :)